Benny Elias Comments re: Origin

Now I want to preface this by saying I am not a Benny Elias fan at all, I think he's a tool. But last night on the Back Page he basically said the following:

'10-20years ago Australia would stop for the first hitup of Origin, the first scrum....because they knew it could erupt...there was anticipation about it. Everybody, not just rugby league people couldn't miss it'.

This to me is so true. Now I still love Origin (I know a lot on here don't), but I certainly don't have that anticipation of something like this anymore. Benny was talking about bringing back the shoulder charge or something for Origin, and I agree we need something to get Origin more like what it was.....

Totally agree.
Rugby League is losing the popularity battle with AFL and soccer. Even rugby at Super 15 level is more exciting. A lot of this has to do with the boring coaching tactics, which seem to be: "we can't afford mistakes so let's not try anything". Also, the style of player we have tries to go through their opposition, rather than finding ways to beat their man. And, of course, the issues mentioned by Backdoor Benny.

Unfortunately Origin is pretty much today's club-level NRL magnified: all about completions, five forward hit-ups followed by a kick. Yes, it's tough and uncompromising, but it's also boring as bat****. There are some amazingly talented players out there, but they're all terrified to use their amazing talents for fear of making a mistake.
I couldn't really give a toss about Origin these days. Weirdly enough, I'm hoping Queensland win tonight's game and that Cherry has a blinder. I'd prefer to see him do well than to see NSW do well.

Now I want to preface this by saying I am not a Benny Elias fan at all, I think he's a tool. But last night on the Back Page he basically said the following:

'10-20years ago Australia would stop for the first hitup of Origin, the first scrum....because they knew it could erupt...there was anticipation about it. Everybody, not just rugby league people couldn't miss it'.

This to me is so true. Now I still love Origin (I know a lot on here don't), but I certainly don't have that anticipation of something like this anymore. Benny was talking about bringing back the shoulder charge or something for Origin, and I agree we need something to get Origin more like what it was.....

Click to expand...

I hate how grubby the game has become. 10-15 years ago slater couldn't do what he does because someone would land 6-7 on his chin so he wouldn't have even tried. It's like a smack with your kids, its the threat of it that kept me in line as a kid not because it actually hurt. The threat of violence in origin IMO kept it a little bit cleaner. If someone gives another bloke an elbow massage to the face they deserve to be belted. We're all adults (it's not like young kids are up till the stupid 8:30pm kick off), I grew up with violence in origin and it didn't harm me. Kids can watch stuff like UFC and play video games where they graphically kill people and yet our PC culture is worried about a couple of punches that rarely connect.

But oh I forgot its completely fine attacking the head if its not a punch. The game is pathetic at the moment. And all our social sports commentators like matty johns are too PC to say it should be back. He skirts around the issue constantly. Give the discretion back to the ref

Let's look at both teams: Is there one player in the NSW team that would make the best 17 NSW squad ever? Gallen, perhaps. Hayne, but he's no longer there. The NSW team is made up of better-than-average first graders. Dugan may develop into a champion. I doubt any of the others will.
Then look at Qld where you have at least five who would make the Qld Best - Inglis, Thurston, Slater, Cronk, Smith, and possibly Boyd, Hodges and Scott.
There is so much more class in the Qld team. The only hope NSW has is that all those great Queenslanders are past their best.

Remember the days of the great playmakers in Origin - Kenny and Lewis in particular. Sides of that era weren't playing to simple formulas, and you knew if something was going to happen in attack, it was going to come through some play of brilliance from these players, not from 4 consecutive hit ups and a kick, playing high percentage football, 'sticking to our structures', 'following the game plan', "high completion rates', 'reducing the error rate' etc. This is footy by formula and it's lead to the death of the great playmakers. Can anyone imagine Cliff Lyon's playing according to a Bellamy or Madge game plan. The minute a pass went to ground they'd be halling him off. No chance for players with skills like that to fully develop them.

Keep a decent 10m, limit the interchange and there we will have origin back how it should be played.

Click to expand...

I read an article a while ago (can't remember where exactly) that to bring the ball players back into the game (especially forward ball players) the defensive line should be taken back 5m instead of 10m. The argument being that getting a 10m running start before you reach the defence encourages the bash and barge tactics we see today. A team can make 40-50m without making a line break or even passing the ball, put a decent kick and chase on the end and you've gone 70-80m in the set. Changing back to 5m would encourage some ball playing to get through the line as bash and barge will only gain you 20-25m.

I can see the logic in this argument as teams also wouldn't need to wrestle and slow down the play the ball as much as their defensive line only has to retreat 5m instead of 10m. With the current guarantee of 70m gain per set, teams are playing field position and waiting for a mistake, rather than playing actual football to create line breaks and scoring opportunities.

I read an article a while ago (can't remember where exactly) that to bring the ball players back into the game (especially forward ball players) the defensive line should be taken back 5m instead of 10m. The argument being that getting a 10m running start before you reach the defence encourages the bash and barge tactics we see today. A team can make 40-50m without making a line break or even passing the ball, put a decent kick and chase on the end and you've gone 70-80m in the set. Changing back to 5m would encourage some ball playing to get through the line as bash and barge will only gain you 20-25m.

I can see the logic in this argument as teams also wouldn't need to wrestle and slow down the play the ball as much as their defensive line only has to retreat 5m instead of 10m. With the current guarantee of 70m gain per set, teams are playing field position and waiting for a mistake, rather than playing actual football to create line breaks and scoring opportunities.

Click to expand...

Possibly. It would help if scrums were forced to stay 'bound' until the ball had cleared the scrum, the backline actually contained backs and set themselves deep so they could attack, and the coaches worked on plays from the scrums. Scrums should be the best place for backline attack but they are a complete shambles. I don't mind the half feeding the ball shoddily, but not allowing pushing and binding has made this part of the sport a laughing stock.

That's a good point TW, the first play from a scrum is now just used to setup the play for the set, rather than a tool to attack from, which is a shame. However, I'm not sure what the answer is, because if we take scrums back to engaging, pushing and binding properly, you need to completely re-educate the props and hookers on proper scrummaging as the risk of serious injury (ie broken neck) is very real if you don't know what you're doing. Front rowers in Rugby spend pretty much they're entire junior development learning to scrummage properly, as much for their own safety than gaining any winning edge. Most scrum collapses are on the engagement so you could maybe take the engagement out and gently lean in (which is how Rugby is heading), and pushing allowed once the scrum has 'engaged', and as you say, bind and stay bound until the ball is out.

I read an article a while ago (can't remember where exactly) that to bring the ball players back into the game (especially forward ball players) the defensive line should be taken back 5m instead of 10m. The argument being that getting a 10m running start before you reach the defence encourages the bash and barge tactics we see today. A team can make 40-50m without making a line break or even passing the ball, put a decent kick and chase on the end and you've gone 70-80m in the set. Changing back to 5m would encourage some ball playing to get through the line as bash and barge will only gain you 20-25m.

I can see the logic in this argument as teams also wouldn't need to wrestle and slow down the play the ball as much as their defensive line only has to retreat 5m instead of 10m. With the current guarantee of 70m gain per set, teams are playing field position and waiting for a mistake, rather than playing actual football to create line breaks and scoring opportunities.

Click to expand...

Agree completely. I remember Peter sterling making this argument years ago. Problem with it is that it's counter intuitive. No chance of happening. It's taken them 20 years to work out that the interchange rules work against open play and take the elusive speed men out of the game.

Another option is to reduce the number of players to 11 or 12. Surprised that doesn't get mentioned more often as an option to open the game up.

It's not really in the NRL's interest for that to happen though. Filling seats at Suncorp for game 3 is a moot point: QLD'rs would pack the joint out to watch the QLD team have a pillow fight. Ratings, on the other hand, would definitely suffer if the game isn't a decider. NSW's viewers would hardly bother and channel Nein know it.